SIC, HARYANA SCO NO. 70-71, SECTOR 8-C, CHANDIGARH APPEAL CASE NO. 2422 OF 2019 Appellant Ms. Kusum Relan D/o Sh. Sita Ram Relan, 5/335, Railway Road, Sonepat. Chief Information Commissioner Shri Yash Pal Singal 2. Ms. Kusum Relan, the appellant addressed RTI dated 22.03.2018 to the SPIO of the office of Superintendent of Police, Sonepat and submitted that a complaint dated 11.03.2016 was lodged by her with the police against Sh. Navneet Verma and his family but it was withdrawn in the morning of next day. The In-charge of the Police Station instead of returning the complaint kept it on the record stating that it has now been filed. The complaint was withdrawn in view of the respect of her parents in the society. Thereafter, Sh. Navneet Verma has been able to obtain the copy of the said complaint under the provision of RTI applications and succeeded in spoiling her future by taking up the matter with her in-laws. 3. The respondent SPIO further submitted that appellant is making allegation that her complaint dated 11.03.2016 has been shared with information seeker who used the said complaint with her in-laws. Now, on the complaint lodged by the applicant against her husband, a case no. 794 of 2017 has been registered under section 323, 354, 377, 406, 498 A, 506, 34 IPC, in City Police Station, Sonepat and challan of the case stands put in the court of jurisdiction. 4. Sh. Sita Ram Relan, represented the appellant, alleged that the respondent SPIO has not acted in accordance with the provision of RTI Act, 2005 and furnished information to third party which was closely related to her daughter . The said information was later on misused and the future of her daughter has been spoilt. He prayed for taking strong action against the SPIO and also requested to grant the appellant compensation for the detriment and mental agony caused to her. 5. The Commission carefully considered the matter. Records of the case have been perused. The averments submitted by the parties have been noted. The appellant has agitated for wrongly furnishing of personal information to third party which was later on misused and her future has been spoilt. The representative of the appellant requested to take action against the SPIO and compensate the appellant as per provisions of the Act. The Commission in is regard perused Section 21 of the RTI Act, 2005 reads as under:- “ No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against any person for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act or any rule made thereunder.” The Commission cannot take any action against the respondent SPIO in view of the fact no mala fide of SPIO has been established and in view of the provision of Section 21 of the Act as reproduced above. 6. In view of the above stated facts, the Commission decides to close the matter. Announced. To be communicated. Sd/- (Yash Pal Singal) Place : Chandigarh. CIC, Dated: 24.04.2019 Haryana.

1. 1
AC No. 2422 of 2019
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, HARYANA
SCO NO. 70-71, SECTOR 8-C, CHANDIGARH
APPEAL CASE NO. 2422 OF 2019
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT-UNDER SECTION 19
Relevant facts emerging from the appeal
Name of the appellant Ms. Kusum Relan D/o Sh. Sita Ram Relan,
5/335, Railway Road, Sonepat.
Name of the Respondents 1. SPIO-cum-Deputy Superintendent,
Police (HQ), Sonepat.
2. FAA-cum- Superintendent, Police (HQ),
Sonepat.
RTI-application filed on 22.03.2018
SPIO replied on 02.04.2018
First appeal filed on 04.10.2018
First appeal decided on 29.01.2019
Second appeal filed on 18.02.2018
Date of hearing 24.04.2019
Chief Information Commissioner Shri Yash Pal Singal
Present Sh. Sita Ram Relan on behalf of appellant;
Sh. Hoshiar Singh, SI.
This case came up for hearing before the Commission on the
ground that the respondent SPIO has furnished information to an
information seeker which was closely related to the applicant.
2. Ms. Kusum Relan, the appellant addressed RTI application dated
22.03.2018 to the SPIO of the office of Superintendent of Police,
Sonepat and submitted that a complaint dated 11.03.2016 was lodged
by her with the police against Sh. Navneet Verma and his family but it
was withdrawn in the morning of next day. The In-charge of the Police
Station instead of returning the complaint kept it on the record stating
that it has now been filed. The complaint was withdrawn in view of the
respect of her parents in the society. Thereafter, Sh. Navneet Verma
has been able to obtain the copy of the said complaint under the
provision of RTI applications and succeeded in spoiling her future by

2. 2
AC No. 2422 of 2019
taking up the matter with her in-laws. Hence, the SPIO was requested
to furnish information why her personal complaint was disclosed to a
person against when it was lodged and later on withdrawn. The
respondent SPIO responded to the RTI application vide letter dated
02.04.2018. Dissatisfied with the response, the matter was taken up
with the Commission on 25.09.2018. The Commission remanded the
matter to the First Appellate Authority-cum-Superintendent of Police,
Sonepat vide order dated 04.10.2018. The FAA disposed of the appeal
on 29.01.2019 stating that the respondent SPIO has already furnished
the information to the appellant vide letter dated 02.04.2018,
16.05.2018 and 09.01.2019.
3. Sh. Hoshiar Singh, Sub Inspector, represented the SPIO-cum-
Deputy Superintendent of Police (HQ), Sonepat and submitted
comments dated 19.04.2019 in response to Commission’s notice dated
18.03.2019 issued under section 19 (3) of the Act. The representative of
the respondent SPIO submitted that appellant’s RTI application was
responded to vide letter dated 02.04.2018. The information was re-
furnished vide letter dated 16.05.2018 to the appellant. The response
was within the stipulated period. The respondent SPIO further submitted
that appellant is making allegation that her complaint dated 11.03.2016
has been shared with information seeker who used the said complaint
with her in-laws. Now, on the complaint lodged by the applicant against
her husband, a case no. 794 of 2017 has been registered under section

3. 3
AC No. 2422 of 2019
323, 354, 377, 406, 498 A, 506, 34 IPC, in City Police Station, Sonepat
and challan of the case stands put in the court of jurisdiction.
4. Sh. Sita Ram Relan, represented the appellant, alleged that the
respondent SPIO has not acted in accordance with the provision of RTI
Act, 2005 and furnished information to third party which was closely
related to her daughter . The said information was later on misused and
the future of her daughter has been spoilt. He prayed for taking stern
action against the SPIO and also requested to grant the appellant
compensation for the detriment and mental agony caused to her.
5. The Commission carefully considered the matter. Records of the
case have been perused. The averments submitted by the parties have
been noted. The appellant has agitated for wrongly furnishing of
personal information to third party which was later on misused and her
future has been spoilt. The representative of the appellant requested to
take action against the SPIO and compensate the appellant as per
provisions of the Act. The Commission in is regard perused Section 21 of
the RTI Act, 2005 reads as under:-
“ No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie
against any person for anything which is in good faith
done or intended to be done under this Act or any rule
made thereunder.”
The Commission cannot take any action against the respondent
SPIO in view of the fact no mala fide of SPIO has been established and
in view of the provision of Section 21 of the Act as reproduced above.

4. 4
AC No. 2422 of 2019
No case is made and to award her compensation under the provisions of
RTI Act, 2005.
6. In view of the above stated facts, the Commission decides to
close the matter.
Announced. To be communicated.
Sd/-
(Yash Pal Singal)
Place : Chandigarh. Chief Information Commissioner,
Dated: 24.04.2019 Haryana.